Thursday, May 17, 2007

National Review has amazing news from Capitol Hill. Yesterday House Democrats unveiled a plan to rewrite the House rules so that Congress can increase taxes and government spending without having to vote. The House voting rules on tax increases have been in place for 185 years, and little 'ole Nancy and her party want to yank the rug right under all that history. And why? What are Democrats so eager to spend money on, if not on national defense (as they refuse to fund the troops in Iraq)? And who do they want to raise taxes on? Well that would be the rich, because after all they have no right to keep the money that they rightfully earned...

We're going to get into this with Jamie Dupree on the show today ... We'll need his help. Over the years congress has intentionally made so many of their rules vague to the point that the average person really can't understand what's going on up there.

The power of the purse is perhaps the most sacred power that Congress has, and Democrats are going to completely betray that trust by allowing money to be tossed around with absolutely no accountability. At a time when everyone (Democrats and Republicans) is fed up with ridiculous spending in Washington, this is exactly what our country does not need. Thanks but no thanks Democrats. You have demonstrated a hypocritical lack of sense and leadership time and time again, and you sure as hell will not be using any of my tax dollars without a proper vote!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) delayed until May 21 the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1348, immigration legislation very similar to last year's Senate-passed amnesty bill (S. 2611). The vote was delayed to buy Senators more time to negotiate a "compromise" bill and draft its language.

Frosty Wooldridge writes:

The Senators listed below are key to stopping Reid and Amnesty legislation. They voted in 2006 to bring the illegal alien amnesty bill to a floor vote so they could play "moderate" on the record with a "yes" vote for "inclusion". Then they covered themselves with the Republican base and tried to recover their "anti-amnesty" image by voting NO on passage of the bill, well aware that the legislation would fail and that their NO vote was just political tail-covering...

Lamar Alexander (R-TN), up for 2008 re-electionThad Cochran (R-MS), up for 2008 re-electionJohn Cornyn (R-TX), up for 2008 re-electionOrrin Hatch (R-UT), was up for 2006 re-electionKay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), was up for 2006 re-electionJon Kyl (R-AZ), was up for 2006 re-electionTrent Lott (R-MS) was up for 2006 re-electionBen Nelson (D-NE) was up for 2006 re-electionDebbie Stabenow (D-MI), was up for 2006 re-electionCraig Thomas (R-WY), was up for 2006 re-electionKen Salazar (D-CO)Senator MurkowskiTed Stevens (R-Alaska)Senator McConnellSenator Harry Reid (D-NV) Hammer him to get a clue on adding 100 million peopleTed Kennedy (D-MA) call him to give him a piece of your mindArlen Spector (R-PA) mostly out of touch with reality, but call anywaySenator Lindsey Graham (SC) He thinks Americans are bigotsSenator Mel Martinez (FL)House Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Give her a piece of your mind on amnesty

The political calculation by conservative senators appears to be that the White House was going to cut a deal with Ted Kennedy with or without them and moderate senators would provide enough votes to pass any such bill. In the absence of vociferous opposition by conservatives, only about a dozen or so GOP senators are likely to oppose the grand "comprehensive" compromise.

My previous optimism about the Senate's inability to come up with a consensus plan that could win broad bipartisan approval obviously underestimated Republican senators' capacity for self-delusion.

·2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act

·2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens]

Guess what? None –not one—of those amnesties was associated with a decline in illegal immigration. On the contrary, the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has tripled since President Reagan signed the first amnesty in 1986. The total effect of the amnesties was even larger because relatives later joined amnesty recipients, and this number was multiplied by an unknown number of children born to amnesty recipients who then acquired automatic US citizenship.

And as I've noted before, there is no such thing as a "temporary" amnesty.

The Bush administration, trying to win an immigration agreement with Democrats, is backing away from safeguards designed to target businesses that hire illegal aliens and to prevent a repeat of the rampant fraud that resulted from the 1986 amnesty.

Republicans are pleading with the Bush administration to hold firm on the safeguards, arguing that otherwise any new guest-worker program will be unworkable.

"We need their help on that," said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, who for two years has fought to give the Department of Homeland Security new tools to limit lawsuits, share information with the Social Security Administration and allow authorities to target those whose applications are denied and who should be deported.